Site Search Navigation

Site Navigation

Site Mobile Navigation

Supported by

Edwards Recants Iraq Report Remark

By Patrick Healy May 31, 2007 5:15 pmMay 31, 2007 5:15 pm

Former Senator John Edwards, a Democratic presidential candidate, told an interviewer on Wednesday that he had read the classified October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate before voting to authorize force in Iraq, even though he had previously maintained that he had not read the report and had only been briefed on it.

The issue surfaced at a forum sponsored by Google as the interviewer, Elliot Schrage, spoke with Mr. Edwards about the war.

“There was this National Intelligence estimate that was confidential that only — that you had to have security clearance or members of the Senate could read,” Mr. Schrage said. “Did you have a chance to read that, and was that part of the—”

“I read it. I read it,” Mr. Edwards said. “But the idea that somehow we had so much more information — having the information turned out to be bad, not good.

“I know this is intelligence information, but I think it’s a very unhealthy thing for the democracy to have — the notion that we’ve got people in Washington who are in the know, and we should just trust them to do the right thing without us knowing. Why does America not know?” Mr. Edwards continued.

A spokesman for Mr. Edwards, Mark Kornblau, offered this explanation by e-mail this afternoon: “He simply misunderstood the question. As Senator Edwards has said many times before, he read the declassified version of the N.I.E., as well as other intelligence documents which were ultimately summarized in the classified version of the N.I.E.”

Mr. Edwards and his aides have indeed often said that he did not read the classified version of the estimate before voting for force in Iraq; other presidential candidates, including Senators Hillary Rodham Clinton and Christopher Dodd, also did not read it before voting to authorize military action, and were only briefed by aides or administration officials on the estimate, their advisers say.
The Politico recently asked several senators if they had read the estimate; among them, Senator Joseph R. Biden Jr., another Democratic presidential candidate, said he had read the estimate.

The critical political issue of John Edwards and his reading or non-reading of the 2002 NIE on Iraq, is likely to excite not many outside the “gotcha” crowd.

Meanwhile, in the actual military campaign in Iraq, the three provinces that make up Iraqi Kurdistan (Sulaimaniyah, Arbil, and Dohuk) have, as of yesterday, taken responsibility for their own security, bringing to a total of 7 out of 18, the number of provinces now providing their own security (joining Maysan, Muthanna, Dhi Qar, and Najaf). What, if not progress?

A news medium is clearly entitled to use its own pages to raise and promote excitement about the issues surrounding John Edwards and his bill-reading habits.

There is, however, political news of much deeper import going on in the geographic nexus of liberal hysteria, which one might imagine would merit front page coverage, if not relegation to at least the blog section.

By September 2002 the White House was already telling CIA director George Tenet “it’s no longer about intelligence, it’s about regime change.”

So the extent to which any given legislator cast a fully informed vote a month later is really beside the point since by October the administration’s weapons beliefs were thenceforth predicated upon intelligence the accuracy of which had privately become irrelevant, even to the president himself.

The believer-in-chief just forgot to tell the rest of us that by March 19th his most heartfelt weapons beliefs hadn’t actually mattered for six months.

George Bush’s assertion that the invasion of Iraq was precipitated by a catastrophic intelligence failure is therefore a myth – the linchpin myth – of the Iraq war.

How ironic that by early March, our frantic Vice President’s greatest fear must have been, not that Saddam had all those scary weapons Colin Powell told the UN, but that the repeatedly empty-handed weapons inspectors might publicly conclude he didn’t.

The invasion of Iraq was ultimately launched, not by a failure, but by the fear of one.

I think Edwards is playing a word game here. Apparently, he didn’t read the final NIE report according to his prior statement, but then it occurred to him recently that he saw the report in draft form and other intelligence documents as a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee. The point is WHEN did they read it (did Biden read it prior to the vote?) and what version of the NIE did they read (draft or final) and what is the difference between the two? After Bill Clinton’s “depending on what ‘is’ is” and Romney’s “I’ve been a hunter my whole life” (or something like that), I am skeptical of what exactly politicians are saying. Although interestingly, Biden, Rockefeller and Roberts (all who we know of who read the NIE and Edwards who read a draft of it) all voted YES on the AUMF. So how would reading the NIE report have changed anyone’s vote?

“I read it. I read it,” Mr. Edwards said. “But the idea that somehow we had so much more information — having the information turned out to be bad, not good.” What exactly does Edwards mean? Someone should ask him if he thinks Senator Durbin lied when Durbin said that the intelligence committee members knew more. Edwards should just stick to Gonzo’s “I don’t recall.”

By September 2002 the White House was already telling CIA director George Tenet “it’s no longer about intelligence, it’s about regime change.”

So the extent to which any given legislator’s vote was fully misinformed by erroneous intelligence a month later is really beside the point since by October the administration’s weapons beliefs were thenceforth predicated upon intelligence the accuracy of which had privately become irrelevant, even to the president himself.

The believer-in-chief just forgot to tell the rest of us that by March 19 his most heartfelt weapons beliefs hadn’t actually mattered for six months.

George Bush’s assertion that the invasion of Iraq was precipitated by a catastrophic intelligence failure is therefore a myth – the linchpin myth -of the Iraq war.

How ironic that by early March, our frantic Vice President’s greatest fear must have been, not that Saddam had all those scary weapons Colin Powell told the UN, but that the repeatedly empty-handed weapons inspectors might publicly conclude he didn’t.

We went in before that could happen.

Ultimately, the invasion of Iraq was not launched by an intelligence failure, but by the fear of one.

The New York Times and the Democrats only shame this country and the armed forces that we have in Iraq. It is a travesty that our young people are dying out there alone with such obfuscation and demagoguery coming from these so called leaders.

Anyway you want to read it…the Big Lie. Since assuming congressional power in January, the Democratic war machine is responsible for a record 471 American deaths..over 93 per month, 123 in May, not to mention thousands of Iraqis whose lives have been destroyed. Keeping on funding the war you bloody bastards. And have a nice summer vacation.

This is, so far, today’s biggest Non-Story. He read Version A, but not Version B. Or was it the other way around? Were we talking about Version A before, or Version B? What were we talking about this time?
Sheesh! This shipwreck is so far over the dam and under the bridge it’s already out to sea. Everyone knows now, five years later, how the Bushies cooked the books and conned everyone — not just United States senators. Why are we spending time reporting on what one of the victims of this criminal conspiracy did or did not read? The effort here should be to bring to justice the perpetrators of this country’s worst malfeasance in a generation.

Not much of an excuse for not reading the report. Classified intelligence is a fact of life. Its hard to understand how anyone can make such an important vote without carefully studying the intelligence briefings that are made available.

You nailed it Rev. Currie, but they don’t “seem to be guilty”… “they are guilty”. The self-serving interests of both parties are apparent. When a sitting President with a 28 percent approval rating continues to get his way, something is drastically wrong.

“Meanwhile, in the actual military campaign in Iraq, the three provinces that make up Iraqi Kurdistan (Sulaimaniyah, Arbil, and Dohuk) have, as of yesterday, taken responsibility for their own security, bringing to a total of 7 out of 18, the number of provinces now providing their own security (joining Maysan, Muthanna, Dhi Qar, and Najaf). What, if not progress”

progress? i think you are mistaken

the kurds Sulaimaniyah, Arbil, and Dohuk) have been on their own since the kuwait invasion

and Maysan, Muthanna, Dhi Qar, and Najaf are shia strongholds with an accumulated total of 137 coalition combat deaths since the invasion

security progress has to be measured in terms of
what is happening in the provinces where security is the issue

al-anbar province (ramadi, fallujah) 1,231 deaths,

baghdad 999 deaths,

salah & din 328 deaths,

diyala 377 deaths,

bashrah 113 deaths,

ninawa 200 deaths (where sunni’s are in the process of clearing kurds out of the city of mosul)

You didn’t have to read the intelligence report to know that Iraq was unarmed, all you had to do was listen to the UN arms inspectors who followed all the phony intelligence in searching for weapons in vain. Iraq was allowing the inspectors unfettered access to the suspected weapons caches. To attack Iraq under such circumstances is the equivalent of shooting a suspect while his hands are raised over his head. The Democrats were complicit in the rush to war and are enablers to an out of control chief executive. Neither party is representing the interests of the majority and neither party is willing to take on the corrupting influence of big money on our foreign and domestic policy.

liberal histeria huh? 7 out of 18 after over four years of war. ONe of the deadliest months for U.S troops in three years, continued mayhem and death for civilians. Progress? Hmmm. Sorry but I also have a lot of trouble trusting the government at this point when they say Iraqi’s are “in charge of their own security” anywhere. WHo is paying the bills? US. Who is providing he Intel? us. The command and control? Logistics? Poltical cover? air support? Medivac and ready response? Us us us us us. And finally how many of the Iraqi’s “in charge” in those seven provinces are infilitrated and/or in cohoots with either Shi’a death squads or Al Qaeda sypathizers. What about when they “cut and run” (to use one of the rights very favorite terms) when faced with an enemy from the same tribe or sect? Who is going to have to die to clean up the mess? US. Progress indeed. Please stop with the defense of a failed policy and just let me know when we’ve won or have left. No more lies please. I’m so very tired of it.

In 2002 the times were different and this country was ruled by the politics of fear. What would people have have said back then had Edwards not voted for the bill? At least he is one to accept his mistakes and try to correct the path now. That is more than I can say for this administration. This war has cost over $340 billion to date. According to the Borgen Project World Bank, it costs just $19 billion annually to end starvation and malnutrition or just $23 billion annually to reverse the spread of Malaria and AIDS. Wouldn’t aiding in the development of countries and supporting the Millennium Development Goals to end poverty be a better plan for attacking extremism?

Come on Edwards!!! You talk whatever language you think will work at this particular time to help your presidential ambitions. Maybe you should talk about your multimillionair status and how you made all this money off the backs of others. Friend of us “poor people”??? => give us a break!

George Washington: “The constitution vests the power of declaring war in Congress; therefore no offensive expedition of importance can be undertaken until after they shall have deliberated upon the subject and authorized such a measure.” (1793.)

Thomas Jefferson:
“Considering that Congress alone is constitutionally invested with the power of changing our condition from peace to war, I have thought it my duty to await their authority for using force in any degree which could be avoided.” (Message to Congress, 1805.)

It is the right and responsibility of Congress to decide when our nation is to go to war. None of them should have ‘voted’ away their responsibility in this area which is what they did. It was their responsibility and the abdicated it to the president. One of the most cowardly acts in the history of Congress. None of them are clean on this one. Also, I agree with the Rev. They are debating something as important as war and don’t bother to read the material themselves?!? What a sham!

I understand legislators send bills up for votes that consist of hundreds of pages the day before a vote. I guess no one reads them.

I would support impeaching any legislator that votes for a bill he or she has not read. If they are not reading the documents, what are they doing to justify drawing a salary? Fund raisers? Giving access to lobbyists?

Everyone who voted for the Iraq war legislation should have read the intelligence report. I like Edwards positions on the issues; I hope he has learned a lesson.

President Obama drew criticism on Thursday when he said, “we don’t have a strategy yet,” for military action against ISIS in Syria. Lawmakers will weigh in on Mr. Obama’s comments on the Sunday shows.Read more…